Mandeep Saggu Tristan 4" vs. Sinquefield Cup Imperial

Just received this from Staunton Castle, the Mandeep Saggu Collection Tristan Series Luxury Staunton in ebony and boxwood in 4". For those interested in this set, my notes are below, but what really intrigued me was that this seems nearly identical to my 2015 Sinquefield Cup commemorative edition (4", non-DGT, numbered set). I'll share my comparison below, but first my thoughts on the SC set.

Quick summary of the SC set: superb fit and finish, every piece stable and straight, great price, and incredibly fast and free two-day shipping from Ontario to US. This Frank Camaratta design is just beautiful, and this version of the Imperial knight is flawless. If any of you are considering this, I highly recommend it.

Stats (my own measurements, which vary slightly from SC's):

• K: 3.88" tall, 1.88" base, 3.2 oz
• Q: 3.22" tall, 1.68" base, 2.6 oz
• B: 2.80" tall,  1.43" base, 1.9 oz
• N: 2.45" tall, 1.41" base, 1.8 oz
• R: 2.27" tall, 1.58" base, 2.5 oz
• P: 2.00" tall, 1.29" base, 1.2 oz

This was my first time ordering from SC, and I was worried about imperfect pieces and the headache of requesting replacements from an overseas company. Except for the issue with ebony king (see below), I couldn't be happier with the build quality. Even the elliptical shape of the slit in the bishop's mitre was perfect with no rough, stray gouges typically found in other high end sets.

One thing that I noticed is that the ebony is noticeably browner and streakier than I expected. It's advertised as "ebony," unlike a similar Mandeep Collection Cooke 3.625" set I also ordered (due next week) that specifies Diospyros ebenum, which I believe is Ceylon ebony from India. This one in normal ambient light looks black or very dark brown, but under LED it's almost brown in some pieces:

This king is the most noticeable, while the rest are either much darker brown or jet black. At first I was dismayed, but the more I look at the other ebony pieces under natural light, the more I appreciate the beauty of the grain and the warm, non-plastic look and feel. I even imagine that it feels softer and warmer than my other ebony sets. Also unlike my other ebony sets, the weight difference between this set's ebony pieces and the boxwood pieces is negligible, which is odd. On all my other sets, the ebony is noticeably and consistently heavier than its boxwood counterpart. I don't know if this indicates inferior wood, but I don't care enough to be bothered by it. I just wish the king were darker like the other pieces so that it didn't stick out so much, almost as if it's from another set.

Here's a comparison of four of my ebony sets. Left to right – House of Staunton Collector Series 4", SC Tristan 4", 2015 Sinquefield 4", and House of Staunton 1856 Anderssen 3.5":

Note that the Collector is advertised as "genuine ebony," and is the darkest, I'd say uniformly jet black, while the other three are various levels of dark brown (Tristan, "ebony"), very dark brown (Sinquefield, "ebony"), and almost jet black with hints of very dark grain and texture peaking through (Anderssen, Gabon ebony). Of the four, I think I prefer any of the last three over the jet black Collector. (I wonder if the Collector is stained?)

Also, the Tristan has what is advertised as "high quality green felt." When compared to my other House of Staunton pieces, it's slightly greener and thinner than the House of Staunton's baize. In their posting for the similar Mandeep Collection Cooke 3.625", SC specifies "billiard cloth" in one place, and felt in another. Not sure which this Tristan has, but it looks like some sort of woven wool, not the papery felt on plastic pieces.

Tristan vs. Sinquefield:

I think the photos speak for themselves. Tristan is on the left, 2015 Sinquefield right. Other than SC's slightly slimmer pawns, felt base pads, lighter shade of ebony, and signature additions ("Mandeep Saggu" stamping on SC's kings' bases, commemorative English leather stamping on the Sinquefield base pads) I can't tell them apart, even under LED. As someone else posted recently, I wonder if Mandeep is the manufacturer of both. Regardless, his work is both beautiful and relatively affordable, a rare combination.

A lovely set and an excellent, informative post. I imagine this post will stimulate yet more discussion about quality of ebony etc … I tend to be drawn to the outcome and I like seeing the slight variation in wood grain - it reminds me of Kamagong wood. That said, its subjective and further, perhaps it would be helpful for suppliers to not only note the wood but perhaps indicate additional (we aim for this wood to be jet black) or (with xx wood, some brown wood grain is visible from time to to) or words to there effect. Whatever helps the consumer understand what they are purchasing. Regardless / an excellent set and it seems you have numerous excellent sets! 👍

Agree with you @Powderdigit on preferring the more non-jet black ebony with more prominent wood grain. I also agree with you on the point of better indicating to potential buyers the character of the woods they sell. Also a big thanks to @Maxfinis. This is an amazingly informative post for any potential buyers of Sinquefield/Tristan set. 

I agree with @powderdigit and @kineticpawn in regards to the ebony grain/colour. The jet black ebony may as well be plastic or dyed with a black stain. It very well may be for all we know. As for the felt, the Tristan you show appears to have baize and not felt (given that it has a cross weave vs a random matting of fibres).

I love the Tristan set. In fact it is the first luxury set that I wanted, except I had the unfortunate experience of trying to order it through The Chess Empire and ended up with some unacceptable pieces. Thanks for sharing your lovely set, I think the head on view of the knight has a difference in the set of the eyes (less bulbous on the Tristan) and in the snout (the Sinquefield has carving where the Tristan does not). However the Sinquefield has clearly superior carving details on the brow mane and from the side profile. I don't know the price difference, but knowing HOS vs SC prices it's clear that you get what you pay for.

I have 2 sets from Mandeep Saggu and I have also noted that his black kings tend to be made from a browner grade of Ebony than the rest of the black army. I have seen this in the sets that others post of his as well, it can't be a coincidence. It seems to be the rule for his sets.

These are my thoughts on the matter: Obviously the king has the largest base diameter and is a singular stand alone piece in a set. The queens and bishops usually have a similar base diameter, same with the rooks and knights, followed by the pawns. When it comes to breaking out stock the king is the outlier and would cause significant waste if say the queen and bishop blanks were also milled to the same diameter as the king. To save money (and precious Ebony) I assume that Mandeep uses larger blanks cut from thicker but cheaper grade ebony for all his kings. Most people won't notice the difference, and since the king is a stand alone piece it can almost be gotten away with. It is my one complaint with his sets, as I desire consistency and a singular brown piece stands out like a sore thumb in our modern world of LED lighting. 

Regardless of this, beautiful set, and thanks for the review.

Very nice sets. Just a quick remark regarding the ebony. The uniform deep black colour known from the production of modern chess pieces is usually not based on a natural occurrence, but is artificially brought about by a chemical process. In its original state, the heartwood is rather dark brown or deep black, but interspersed with more or less pronounced grey or brown grains. Only a very small proportion of ebony is naturally uniformly black, and such wood is not found in every trunk. Even in the 19th century, the natural grain was visible in many pieces, as you can see below.

Given today's mass production, the naturally occurring jet-black wood is no longer sufficient, so the grained remainder is chemically treated to achieve the same result. Ebony with visible grain is therefore the natural product, while pure black ebony is nowadays more the artificial product. So I personally clearly prefer the grained version. When I launched my limited edition Augustea set in 2020, it was very important to me that the wood is not chemically treated thus showing the natural grain as far as possible. I even went so far as to compile my personal set with the most grained pieces. The grain is difficult to see with the naked eye, but in the sunlight the wood looks incredibly vivid. I love it!

This is how ebony looks in its raw, unpolished condition.

This is how the final polished result looked like without chemical "enhancement"

And one final remark about "Diospyros ebenum", i.e. Ceylon ebony, being used for these pieces. I am not sure, if this is really correct, but I also do not want to accuse anyone of misrepresentation. However, as far as I know, this wood species is hardly available today. Due to exploitation, the species is classified as endangered in Sri Lanka and its trade is banned in both India and Sri Lanka already since 1998. There are substitutes which provide black ebony, but not of the same quality as Ceylon ebony, which is the very reason why these woods are often treated chemically to make the timber look identical in its pitch black colour.

To be clear, it's the Cooke 3.625" that he advertises as Diospyros ebenum, while the Tristan is simply "ebony." To your point, though, I would be very impressed if it were used in either of these sets. Also, what an informative post. Love your polished, un-enhanced pieces. 

@maxfinis to be fair, the trade restrictions extend to raw timber, but I do not know if they also extend to finished products. Maybe there are exceptions. I read a bit about the topic today and learned that especially India made some efforts in forest ecosystem restoration work in South India, so they are slowly starting to use and distribute Diospyros ebenum again, which seems to be a possible legal source for the material.

Wow, you have a better eye than I! Another thing I notice now is that the Sinquefield head is a little wider, more muscular, while the Tristan is just slightly narrower and more feminine. (In my coffee-induced haze, I imagine Mandeep combining the two and calling it Tristan und Isolde!) Or maybe I'm getting carried away, because even in the Sinquefield knights, there are variations. I'm not sure that one is superior, but perhaps variations among different cuttings? Also, what you see depends on the lighting and composition, and my photography skills are limited. Below is with different lighting that may show better details.

Tristan left, Sinquefield right:

Regarding price difference, the Sinquefield originally retailed for $1,295, but it came as a limited and numbered edition in a package with a certificate signed by the 2015 players and custom engraved box. The Tristan retails for $731 and is currently reduced to $400. I don't know what the Sinquefield pieces with ebony/boxwood (not the Player's version in boxwood that HOS currently sells) would cost separately, so it's hard to compare apples to apples. The closest could be this 3.75" Imperial for $699, but the ebony version (like many other ebony on HOS) has been out of stock, and this one is a bit smaller.

It is a curse, as I am generally quick to spot defects in sets of my own, and in anything I build. I think it's also important to say that photos also never do a set justice. They don't show the overall appeal of it. I've found my own knights don't present well in photos, in person I take much more pleasure in them!

As for your knights: to me it is obvious which is the more expensive set. The Sinquefield has more carving detail, even spacing between parallel lines, finer details overall. Rather than have flat lines anywhere the carver has made the knight look harder, more muscular and more regal. It's a wonderful comparison side by side, and not one that many people are able to do. But it shows the quality difference SC and HOS. I still think the Tristan is a lovely set all on it's own, I'm tempted to buy one, but it doesn't hold a candle to the clearly finer quality of the Sinquefield. I think it's a significant comparison to display for all who are considering which retailer to go through when they want a set, especially detail oriented people (such as myself). In summary it is more fuel for the fire in regards to the argument that HOS provides the finest carving for their higher prices. 

It’s blindingly obvious that Mandeep supplied camaratta as the sets are made by the same hand 

remember that house of Staunton are NOT manufacturers and Mandeep handicrafts as he was once known as, are manufacturers from 1970 when his father created the company 

Yes a beautiful set and no doubt top quality 👌

Yes, I also believe Mandeep was the HoS supplier at some point. I also believe Mandeep use to supply Official Staunton also. 

Yes I read he used to supply those companies until he decided to go to retail himself. He is a fine craftsman 

It's like a 80's soap who did this & who made that ? don 't forget TCE !

And don't forget K.S. Artworks founded by Karnail Singh and nowadays run by his son Mantej Singh, who are closely working with both HOS and OS.

I recently purchased his Ceska Klubovka pieces and was very impressed by his quality and overall buying experience.....From a purely selfish stand point,I'm waiting for another 15% off sale and will purchase the Hallett set.

It makes it an easier sale to the wife,as to why I need another set....Ha.

The natural ebony with the brown/black grain looks better to me.

Ebonization (extra black dye applied) of ebony is common practice in my line of work (musical instruments). Some customers don't believe it's ebony unless it's completely black, because they've never taken the time to look into what ebony naturally looks like. It's not jet black but brownish/black (Indian ebony) or grey-ish (Madagascan ebony, which is the hardest but least attractive kind). So the instrument makers dye the African ebony further, but under the sweat of one's hands, the dye will come off. That's why I rub off the extra dye myself on the instruments I'm selling after they arrive at my shop.

The cheaper Indian ebony has brown streaks and in order to make it jet black colour and cover the lime desposit lines, chess manufacturers treat it with chemicals. Unfortunately, African ebony is expensive due to its high density and jet black colour and its export is even banned.

I think that the Ceylon ebony is finished with black wax

I do have some Macassar ebony and african blackwood in stock. Both are beautiful in their natural state.

The one huge glaring difference between the two sets is that one set is an official authorized Frank Camaratta set. An authorized set rewards the copyrighted design holder for his work, research and development as well as rewards the manufacturer with contracted work. The other set is a copy that only rewards the manufacturer who resides in a country where copyright and patent laws are lax and/or unenforced. I'm not here to lecture anyone. I get it. The copy is cheaper in price. Your money. Your decision. They copy does look nice!